Seriously though, why would you seek that kind of validation on the internet, anyway?

Quote:

Here's my dilemma: I think it's a little reckless to tell people that BB equipped rifles with prohibited features are "100% friggin' legal" (bwiese said that once on one of the message boards). I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as that.

Quote:

There is no chance of validation of the competing argument here, which is why it would be tempting for me to provide commentary in the OAL proceedings. I'd be conlicted about doing that but if it were done in the context of a wager that would be different.

So I'm not understanding what your dilemma is, exactly. But it sounds like you're just inherently uncomfortable with the opposition's inability to write anti-gun statutes that clearly reflect their intent -- and you'd rather we just skip all the legal wrangling and stop using BB-configured OLLs.

Here's another wager proposal: OAL agrees a legally tenable argument can be made that a Bullet Button equipped, semiautomatic centerfire rifle has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, notwithstanding APA-compliant, binding 5469(a) and the lawfully configured SKS fixed-magazine rifle.

I think I know where you are going, except I don't think a legitimate argument can be made by your reasoning.

In order for a judgement to be made whether a specific rifle is an "assault weapon" it must be considered as a complete, ready to fire unit. That includes a magazine inserted in the magazine well. When using a properly installed Prince50 or BB, with the magazine inserted, it cannot be removed without the use of tools and no longer has the "capacity to accept" any magazine.

This is probably a losing bet for me but with the right odds I'd take it: $250.00, 10 to 1 odds, that OAL summarily disposes of the underground regulation petition, or decides that there is no underground regulation in the "CTA letter." If OAL declines to accept or DOJ does a 280 certification it's a draw.

That is very cool to see a link to Ultimate Rollercoaster here, the owner of the site is a friend of mine and a SoCal native... but not a gun guy. He started the site in college, and I think some of the photos I took are still up there.

In order for a judgement to be made whether a specific rifle is an "assault weapon" it must be considered as a complete, ready to fire unit. That includes a magazine inserted in the magazine well. When using a properly installed Prince50 or BB, with the magazine inserted, it cannot be removed without the use of tools and no longer has the "capacity to accept" any magazine.

I have a hard time understanding how this is a legally-tenable interpretation. Wouldn't there be no such thing as a rifle that had a "capacity to accept" a magazine when it had a magazine already in its well?

I can only conclude that "capacity to accept" refers to the rifle with no magazine attached. The P50 (properly installed) and BB simply make the magazine non-detachable without tools, since it has no moving parts which make it "detachable" or "fixed" -- the magazine retention system of the rifle determines that. (As another poster rightly said earlier, "all magazines are ultimately detachable, and I've got the tools to prove it.")

This is probably a losing bet for me but with the right odds I'd take it: $250.00, 5 to 1 odds, that OAL summarily disposes of the underground regulation petition, or decides that there is no underground regulation in the "CTA letter." If OAL declines to accept or DOJ does a 280 certification it's a draw.

It's been a while since I engaged in betting online, but isn't that unwinable ?

(a) Any action of OAL or an agency pursuant to this chapter in connection with a petition shall be suspended if OAL receives a certification from the agency that it will not issue, use, enforce, or attempt to enforce the alleged underground regulation along with proof that the certification has been served on the petitioner. This certification shall be made by the head of the agency or a person with a written delegation of authority from the head of the agency.

(b) Upon receipt of this certification and proof of service, OAL shall do all of the following:

(1) File the petition and the certification with the Secretary of State.

(2) Publish a summary of the petition and the certification in the California Regulatory Notice Register.

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

If we can, let's structure something that won't get anyone in trouble.

As you might have caught from another thread, I've been a bit busy. I'd really like to find a way to do these sorts of public wagers legally. Mind taking a look?

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

What about the first paragraph of AM's letter where she says the DOJ has no duty to declare whether a firearm is not an AW.

In that case, why was a letter written advising that the Stag-15 was legal to purchase in California? I guess it's your duty only when you think it's convenient.

Ms. M, go back and read your job description:

It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced (California Constitution, Article V, Section 13.)

So who do you go to when you want a legal opinion as to whether your firearm is legal? One would think it's the BOF, but according to AM it's not their legal duty to say whether a firearms is legal and that is for the courts to decide. Maybe in that case the next move should be to file a lawsuit for declaratory relief that the P50 and the BB are legal, and an injunction against the DOJ enforcing its unconstitutional and illegal underground regulation.

Maybe in that case the next move should be to file a lawsuit for declaratory relief that the P50 and the BB are legal, and an injunction against the DOJ enforcing its unconstitutional and illegal underground regulation.

We'll let OAL run its course first...

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

"It's not always being fast or even accurate that counts, it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. They blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger--and I won't."

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon

So who do you go to when you want a legal opinion as to whether your firearm is legal? One would think it's the BOF, but according to AM it's not their legal duty to say whether a firearms is legal and that is for the courts to decide.

Wouldn't that then mean that 12276.1 is an unconstitutionally vague law if the only authority that can determine if a law was violated is the judicial system?

i.e. How does one know what is proscribed if a court must decide what the law really means?

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"

I grew up in the South so I was a "gun fan" in the way that most southern boys were. I had a BB gun very early and my dad bought me a shotgun before I could drive.

I came out here and experienced the state placing its nose in places it shouldn't be and that accelerated my interest.

-Gene

__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns FoundationDONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!

"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon